I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Yes.
Such as?
Erect a border, enforced by the national army, on the perimeter of the country.
And have it challenged in the ECJ under free movement...
O'Malley acted as a bit of a spoiler in the Democrat polling tbh.
It appears his supporters broke for Sanders but who knows ?
There was a poll that suggested that O'Malley's supporters would break by more than 2:1 for Sanders but I don't know how reliable that is given how few O'Malley supporters there were in Iowa to poll.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Yes.
Such as?
Erect a border, enforced by the national army, on the perimeter of the country.
And have it challenged in the ECJ under free movement...
With appeals think how long that buys them. That gives them enough time to plan an exit from the schengen treaties. The UK has an enforced border and it is legal within free movement - you're talking rubbish.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
I think that in general, the leadership of the Conservative Party think that Blair's government was a good government, whereas the rank and file think it was a bad government.
Having watched a fair amount of the CNN coverage last night and seeing the detail of the caucus process, I am amazed that such a form of 'democracy' still is considered acceptable.
Whilst I can appreciate the idea that people come together for a final mini-rally and then have a vote - but the Democratic Party's system of having people sat in groups and then getting them to move between chairs to indicate their support is utterly mad. The potential for peer pressure/bullying is immense.
At least the Republicans have a basic paper ballot in place.
But the caucus model is just bizarre and I am amazed that it hasn't be challenged. It doesn't come as a shock to me that the pollsters find it an impossible one to test properly through interviews.
One man's peer pressure/bullying is another man's consensus building. And the caucus is not the entirety of the process. Come election day, ballots are secret.
I think a pretty good argument can be made that a caucus approach to selection of candidates is better at providing a slate of broadly acceptable choices than the current GOP large field and secret ballots.
The thing I really like about it is that citizens, rather than spin PR campaigns, debate the candidates' strengths and weaknesses and try to persuade each other. Not perfect, but it creates a more engaged electorate than simply putting a x in a box in the privacy of a booth.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
No, you simply have to be pragmatic and take your chance when - if - it comes. Most politicians are practical about what they can do and who they'll work with to do it. A few are ideologues and ranters, who are mostly ignored and irrelevant. The world is complex and contradictory; why should we expect our politicians to be any different?
Take your chance to do what?
I continually read on here that elections are won in the centre, I don't doubt it's true, but what that creates is twp parties full of insipid sales reps parrotting the same old cliches. Politics should be about principles and public service, not obsequiously lining up hoping for a job.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
Don't know why people think Rubio will do better than Cruz now. Cruz will do well in Nevada and Super Tuesday southern states.
I expect Cruz to be third or worse in New Hampshire, third in Nevada, and wouldn't be surprised if he was third in South Carolina too.
The issue he has is that Super Tuesday is as good as it gets for Cruz. After the swathe of Southern states (which are mostly proportional), he's got very little.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
I think that in general, the leadership of the Conservative Party think that Blair's government was a good government, whereas the rank and file think it was a bad government.
I think it was well intentioned, to begin with at least, but they allowed Gordon Brown too much power and in the end they failed in the way that most Labour Governments fail.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
You forgot number 4. Make it harder to earn/receive economic benefits relative to other countries in Europe. You don't have to be faster than the tiger, only faster than the slowest meal.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
I think that in general, the leadership of the Conservative Party think that Blair's government was a good government, whereas the rank and file think it was a bad government.
I suspect their definition of good govt differs too. The definition on here from pb.tories is framed around winning elections, everything else is irrelevant.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
None of those will have any real effect. The only one that would is deporting them back to their country of origin which would be in violation of German law.
I also think they should take over the Greek operation in the Med and instead of letting them onto EU soil they should be taken back to the nearest MENA port for processing in an Asylum centre there. North African citizens can have their Asylum applications dismissed on the spot then.
Right now everyone arriving has one goal, to get to Greece and then slip through the cracks in the system. Stopping all of the arrivals in Greece would be a massive step forwards and it will take a huge force of patrol ships in the Med to stop the people trafficking, but I would guess it's a cheaper option than providing housing and other services once they arrive.
Still, this is all hypothetical, Merkel still hasn't recanted on the original policy of letting anyone who arrives in Germany stay there. All she has said is that they will have to go back once their home nations are safe. I find it very hard to believe that Germany are going to deport over a million people in 7 or 8 years without a huge uproar from the human rights mob.
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
1. is an illusion, increasing affluence increases migration
Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.
But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
You forgot number 4. Make it harder to earn/receive economic benefits relative to other countries in Europe. You don't have to be faster than the tiger, only faster than the slowest meal.
True
But Europe - and I include Norway and Switzerland in this - needs to work on all three. If there is a single magnet country in Europe, then we are all affected.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
None of those will have any real effect. The only one that would is deporting them back to their country of origin which would be in violation of German law.
I also think they should take over the Greek operation in the Med and instead of letting them onto EU soil they should be taken back to the nearest MENA port for processing in an Asylum centre there. North African citizens can have their Asylum applications dismissed on the spot then.
Right now everyone arriving has one goal, to get to Greece and then slip through the cracks in the system. Stopping all of the arrivals in Greece would be a massive step forwards and it will take a huge force of patrol ships in the Med to stop the people trafficking, but I would guess it's a cheaper option than providing housing and other services once they arrive.
Still, this is all hypothetical, Merkel still hasn't recanted on the original policy of letting anyone who arrives in Germany stay there. All she has said is that they will have to go back once their home nations are safe. I find it very hard to believe that Germany are going to deport over a million people in 7 or 8 years without a huge uproar from the human rights mob.
Turning ships around in the Med and returning them to the point of embarkation is a key part of (2). I am just framing them economically rather than purely in security terms.
If your chance of making it to Europe is halved, that is the equivalent of doubling the cost.
Phew, look like I won my two bets on Iowa, albeit by the narrowest of margins on the Dem side. I always thought that Trump would underperform his opinion polling here, given the bizarre process of the caucuses and Cruz's very good organisation in the state. Rubio is certainly the winner in terms of exceeding expectations - the Trump expectations management was very poor.
The Sanders performance is more of a surprise. Hillary is in trouble on multiple fronts, although (email scandal aside) she should make up lost ground after NH.
The market reaction to these results, on the GOP side, looks bonkers to me. Rubio is a clear lay at less than evens, and Trump a clear back at 3/1. Smithson Junior's assessment of the probablilities looks reasonable to me.
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
1. is an illusion, increasing affluence increases migration
Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.
But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.
It is not only about money. It's about making it *safe* to stay. That makes the cost of leaving higher; you're exchanging certain safety for cost, uncertainty and the real risk of dying in the Mediterranean.
Phew, look like I won my two bets on Iowa, albeit by the narrowest of margins on the Dem side. I always thought that Trump would underperform his opinion polling here, given the bizarre process of the caucuses and Cruz's very good organisation in the state. Rubio is certainly the winner in terms of exceeding expectations - the Trump expectations management was very poor.
The Sanders performance is more of a surprise. Hillary is in trouble on multiple fronts, although (email scandal aside) she should make up lost ground after NH.
The market reaction to these results, on the GOP side, looks bonkers to me. Rubio is a clear lay at less than evens, and Trump a clear back at 3/1. Smithson Junior's assessment of the probablilities looks reasonable to me.
Smithson Junior also said to sell the Tump-Rubio spread
Mr. Pulpstar and Mr. T, thanks, but at least, for Sanders, he'll got something from it.
Yes, indeed. The delegate playing field is essentially still level after Iowa - in both parties. Only two delegates between Hillary and Bernie, and only 2 between Cruz, Trump and Rubio. For that matter, even Gilmore is only 8 behind Cruz
This is why, in the GOP race with such a large field that won't finally shake out for another couple of weeks, I have been arguing that the traditional view that you have to win one of the first two to go on to the nomination simply need not hold this time. Rubio could come third again in NH and still be ahead of Cruz and only a few behind Trump in the delegate count. If he has a good day, Kasich could be in the mix too at that stage, but with far worse prospects than Rubio.
Turning ships around in the Med and returning them to the point of embarkation is a key part of (2). I am just framing them economically rather than purely in security terms.
If your chance of making it to Europe is halved, that is the equivalent of doubling the cost.
There is no will in Germany to make any of your points (or mine) happen. In Switzerland they have taken the same line as the Danes, give us your money of bugger off, I'm told it has severely reduced the number of people arriving in the last few weeks as word has got out. The same is probably true in Denmark, but I've not kept track of the situation there as closely.
While Merkel and the rest of the German government keeps their heads in the sand and hopes that Greece will somehow stop all these people arriving or send them back nothing in Europe is going to change. The idea that Germany can close its border is laughable, they have a huge insecure land border with the Czech Republic who are actively pushing the migrants towards Germany and Austria.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Migrants are economically rational.
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive 2. Make the crossing more difficult 3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
You forgot number 4. Make it harder to earn/receive economic benefits relative to other countries in Europe. You don't have to be faster than the tiger, only faster than the slowest meal.
True
But Europe - and I include Norway and Switzerland in this - needs to work on all three. If there is a single magnet country in Europe, then we are all affected.
Agreed. Re 'a single magnet country', which is why Merkel should be held responsible for what she has cost Europe.
@sundersays: The Donald Trump campaign was hoping that considerably more non-voters would vote.
Indeed. But it was a record turnout for the GOP caucus with 40% first timers. So that in the end was probably not Trump's undoing as indications are that some of the turn out and first timers were driven by the Anyone But Trump meme.
@sundersays: The Donald Trump campaign was hoping that considerably more non-voters would vote.
I am not sure all this putting the boot into Trump from all the major parties is going to look terribly clever in a years time. How is President Trump going to view a UK where all the major parties appeared to be doing their best to nobble his election ? We have just had two terms of a president that didn't like the UK, are we really desperate for two more ? Yes he may not win, but he may well, so, is it the smart thing to do ? It's particularly idiotic of party leaders to come anywhere near this sort of controversy, that is what outriders and "sources close to the government " are for - deniability if the "wrong" man wins.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
You don't need to be a true tribalist to believe that any plausible successor to Cameron would be better than Corbyn/McDonnell.
On economic governance, the draft Decision of the Heads sets out principles to ensure mutual respect between the Member States taking part in further deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union and those which do not. By doing that we can pave the way for the further integration within the euro area while safeguarding the rights and competences of non-participating Member States.
waffle
The respect for these principles is backed up by a draft Decision establishing a mechanism that while giving necessary reassurances on the concerns of non-euro area Member States, cannot constitute a veto nor delay urgent decisions. The exact conditions for triggering this mechanism remain to be further discussed.
waffle
On competitiveness, the draft Decision of the Heads, together with a more detailed European Council Declaration and a draft Commission Declaration, will set out our commitment to increase efforts to enhance competitiveness. We will regularly assess progress in simplifying legislation and reducing burden on business so that red tape is cut.
waffle
On sovereignty, the proposed Decision of the Heads recognises that in light of the United Kingdom's special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration. It also reinforces respect for subsidiarity, and I propose that the Member States discontinue the consideration of a draft legislative act where a number of national parliaments object to it on the grounds of subsidiarity, unless the concerns raised can be accommodated. The importance of respecting the opt-out regime of Protocols 21 and 22, as well as national security responsibilities is also underlined.
waffle
On social benefits and free movement, we need to fully respect the current treaties, in particular the principles of freedom of movement and non-discrimination. Therefore the proposed solution to address the UK concerns builds on the clarification of the interpretation of current rules, including a draft Commission Declaration on a number of issues relating to better fighting abuse of free movement.
waffle
Nothing here not in all the briefings is there? Where's this magic stuff Mr.Meeks has been promising us?
It's even more embarrassingly vague and empty than I expected it to be. Yes, some useful pointers to where the EU with the UK on board goes from hereonin - but that wasn't the point. He was supposed to be renegotiating the current basis of our membership - so reining back some of what we are already subjected to.
Other than some potentially positive steps on free movement (the only bit covered in the document where ANYTHING of substance is proposed by way of legislative change), the rest of the document does nothing on that front. In fact, based on my knowledge of EU law and Treaties, it simply seems to reiterate what I thought was already the case anyway. Interspersed with platitudes and "duly noting"s
What a pathetic pile of piss.
I'm broadly pro-EU, and want to remain, but I wanted Cameron to achieve something here to address some of the things that really irritate me about the EU.
He has failed. And even more miserably than I feared.
I just don't see how the PM, or any rationally minded Tory, can sell this to voters.
@sundersays: The Donald Trump campaign was hoping that considerably more non-voters would vote.
Indeed. But it was a record turnout for the GOP caucus with 40% first timers. So that in the end was probably not Trump's undoing as indications are that some of the turn out and first timers were driven by the Anyone But Trump meme.
That's a point which any insurgent who hopes to win by increasing turnout needs to remember: it's very hard to increase your own turnout without increasing the other side's with it.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
You don't need to be a true tribalist to believe that any plausible successor to Cameron would be better than Corbyn/McDonnell.
Congratulations on stating the obvious Verses those two muppets the Conservative party could take firm centre right views on a number of issues, they could actually reduce the deficit rather than talk about it, they could actually reform the tax system, they could actually sort of all sorts of things that have been bugging them for years, safe in the knowledge that no one will vote for Corbyn and McMao, but they wont, they will flap around in the centre ground talking a lot and doing rather little.... rather as Blair did, 170+ majority and achieved almost nothing.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
The one positive may be that with 2 weeks to the summit the anticipated near-universal rejection of what Cameron has achieved may force him to pitch up and say "sorry guys, this just won't cut it" - and either start again, or resign and let someone else start again.
Cameron was always going to be out on his ear this summer if he lost the referendum. I wonder now whether he'll see out March....
Mr. Eek, I know that's the consensus view on timing, but I'm not sure I agree. The crisis will almost certainly be worsening in the run up to a June 2016 vote. It may be improving in 2017 (I doubt it, but it's likelier than that being the case this year).
- Explicit tradeoff of the deal: they can deepen integration of the Eurozone and we won't obstruct them, we are protected against being discrimination. That is exactly what we want.
- Para 1 is encouraging: "Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro."
- Formal acknowledgement of no budgetary responsibility for non-Euro states in bailouts (para 3)
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Looking at the response on here and on the news Cameron would be foolish to go for June, its dawned on him what a massive rick he's made
Leave it later and the one chance you have of winning (early vote before the migrant crisis becomes a CRISIS) will have gone....
Even that might be too late. People were moving in volumes into November, so its highly likely they are going to be on the move late this month or early next month, particularly if there is the fear that Germany might have second thoughts and starting pulling up the drawbridge. Most migrants with an ear on their radio following world events are going to chance moving as soon as the snows thaw.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
What about the other EU referendums where voters delivered a verdict and then were asked to vote again a year later after being fed some pork?
If even 55% vote leave and the new PM says he's going to negotiate a last-ditch deal to stay in and put that to a vote, then nobody can stop him (if he has the support of a majority in the House).
I'm disappointed, the restricted in-work benefits for 4 years (gradually restoring with length of stay) is weaker than what is implied by the Conservative 2015 manifesto - in my book this is a promise broken and unforgivable. A sham.
- Explicit tradeoff of the deal: they can deepen integration of the Eurozone and we won't obstruct them, we are protected against being discrimination. That is exactly what we want.
- Para 1 is encouraging: "Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro."
- Formal acknowledgement of no budgetary responsibility for non-Euro states in bailouts (para 3)
But that doesn't protect us from QMV changes made by EMU nations to the who single market. We don't have a veto, just some vague idea that we won't be discriminated against. We won't be, they aren't going to introduce a new non-Euro transaction fee within the single market, that was never on the table (even if we leave it isn't on the table). What is on the table is ill-defined regulations that fit for the EMU but don't fit for us, but can still be ratified by QMV for the whole EU. We have not secured an opt-out or veto on FinReg. This literally changes nothing. That you are trying to pretend that it is a win is quite sad Richard.
- Explicit tradeoff of the deal: they can deepen integration of the Eurozone and we won't obstruct them, we are protected against being discrimination. That is exactly what we want.
- Para 1 is encouraging: "Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro."
- Formal acknowledgement of no budgetary responsibility for non-Euro states in bailouts (para 3)
I don't see anything there that isn't already the case?
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed 100%.
And I think people peddling Leave means Maybe, are either deluded or lying.
Worse, I think people from both sides are guilty of pushing this for different reasons. Some Remain-ers are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming there is a mandate for another vote in the event of a close Out. Some Leave-ers are hoping to get a few undecideds to vote Out in the chance of more concessions.
How would you price Rubio for POTUS, assuming he is the Republican nominee ?
I'm long Rubio POTUS right now, and think it hedges my GOP book but not sure.
1.75 - think he's favourite against Hillary, and (much) bigger favourite against Sanders. (Biden might be favourite against anyone, at least at first).
Though if it does end up Hillary v Rubio I expect the market will start off with Hillary fav.
- The 'ever closer union' bits are quite useful, with an explicit recognition that it doesn't mean political union and that competences can be returned to member states. Not sure what practical difference it makes, but it's a change of tone.
- "The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States"
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
The best tactic is to vote LEAVE and then start negotiations to stay with other EU countries knowing we really will leave unless we get substantial reforms (eg to the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies and trade protection).
I'm coming to this view.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed 100%.
And I think people peddling Leave means Maybe, are either deluded or lying.
Worse, I think people from both sides are guilty of pushing this for different reasons. Some Remain-ers are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming there is a mandate for another vote in the event of a close Out. Some Leave-ers are hoping to get a few undecideds to vote Out in the chance of more concessions.
Remember boys and girls. Leave means Leave.
Indeed. For one thing, I don't think there would be any way for a Conservative leader to get a bill for a second referendum through Parliament without splitting their party permanently.
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed. The other EU countries are quite willing to try to be reasonably accommodating, but they have basically had enough of endless haggling with the Brits. If we say no, they'll say fine, goodbye. Remember that when we've left just ONE member can veto our coming back.
It's like a difficult marriage where both sides are a bit exasperated but don't quite want to call it off. If one party walks out, then says, "Actually, let's argue about it some more, I might come back", it's human nature to say "Enough already".
I see Hilary has won by "5" votes in Iowa. How likely is this to be wrong ?
695 - 700
IIRC the late, lamented Intrade got in trouble last time around for settling their market for Romney based on the early reports from the local (Romney-supporting) party chairman, then after the media had moved on they discovered a bunch of Santorum votes that the Romney-supporting party organization had inadvertently left behind a sofa somewhere.
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed. The other EU countries are quite willing to try to be reasonably accommodating, but they have basically had enough of endless haggling with the Brits. If we say no, they'll say fine, goodbye. Remember that when we've left just ONE member can veto our coming back.
It's like a difficult marriage where both sides are a bit exasperated but don't quite want to call it off. If one party walks out, then says, "Actually, let's argue about it some more, I might come back", it's human nature to say "Enough already".
If we come back it'll be in the future when the United States of Europe is complete and we'd have no opt outs. I see little reason why they would block us in that future scenario.
Benefits: Less than I expected, although this is academic anyway if the alternative to Remain is an EEA-style deal, which would be the same as what we currently have.
- The 'ever closer union' bits are quite useful, with an explicit recognition that it doesn't mean political union and that competences can be returned to member states. Not sure what practical difference it makes, but it's a change of tone.
- "The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States"
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
That is just a rehashing of "enhanced co-operation" they (tried to) used it for the FTT and the fiscal compact.
So in summary then on the EU "new deal", I think the verdict will be that Cameron has secured us some concessions and a bit of wriggle room we don't currently have on free movement. Good, but not quite what he pitched for.
As for everything else, we have some platitudes and possibly helpful changes to give us a bit more leverage to not be completely screwed over going forward - but most of those platitudes are, i'm afraid to say, already there in many of the EU texts, treaties, communiques etc. And in most cases, the EU institutions just ride roughshod over them and say they have complied.
So why will things be any different going forward?
The vote, should it actually happen, boils down to "you will have the EU set up you currently have, but with a bit more scope for limiting inward migration - take it or leave it".
My fear is that by voting "Remain" I am now implicitly endorsing all that the EU currently does and endorsing the "new deal". I don't want to do that.
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
I don't get your point.
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
Except as Andrew Lilico has pointed out, it's smoke and mirrors and the chances of the conditions required to trigger ever happening are so remotely small as to be not worth considering.
"Consider how implausible the triggering of this new "red card" is. For a measure to pass it wld hv had to have a majority of govts vote in favour of it at the EU council plus 74% by voting weight. The 15 smallest states have 27% of votes so wld hv a blocking minority evn apart from blocking via majority. So only real way red card cld happen wld be if 15 largest voted in favour then Swedish govt fell within 8 weeks & Swedish Parliament changed its vote, whilst all other Parliaments of dissenting countries passed votes against in the same timescale. The term you're reaching for here is: "Never. Gonna. Happen."
The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
This whole thing is kind of weird because it assumes that parliaments are voting to overturn laws that the governments they support are supporting. The problem you have to solve to make it more than an exercise in dicking around is how to reduce the power of the whips, across the entire EU.
Let's say the 'deal' goes down as badly as predicted on here. We are six weeks before a referendum and its 55/35 for leave, the rest don't knows.
Do you really think there won;t be a last ditch initiative to sweeten the offer?
Of course there will be.
But that's different from a UK government being made to rerun the referendum by the EU. Or, for that matter, the UK government choosing to ignore the results of the referendum.
If we vote to Leave, we will invoke Article 50, and we will leave the EU.
If there is a vote to stay in then I see no alternative but to go straight to the core of the EU..and that means joining the EURO..taking full control of the entire organisation and finally getting it to work..more Commissioners..more fiscal common sense..a more careful scrutiny of the books and massive influence..or get the FO in the next ref five years down the line....no point in sitting in the corridor outside the committee room where the decisions are made ..and at the ref I will still vote out..
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
I don't get your point.
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
They didn't make Ireland vote again either, the Irish government made Ireland vote again. If the UK votes leave, several previously unavailable rabbits will pop out of carefully concealed hats, and the usual suspects will jump on planes to Downing Street and ask Cameron if he really wants to throw all this away now he has these new improved concessions. Cameron now a revealed Europhile, who wants to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, will them find a pretext to ask the people again in light of these new offerings.. in reality it would sail through parliament because LAB/LD/SNP would support the motion if it meant that having another chance to stay in the EU.
Let's say the 'deal' goes down as badly as predicted on here. We are six weeks before a referendum and its 55/35 for leave, the rest don't knows.
Do you really think there won;t be a last ditch initiative to sweeten the offer?
Of course there will be.
But that's different from a UK government being made to rerun the referendum by the EU. Or, for that matter, the UK government choosing to ignore the results of the referendum.
If we vote to Leave, we will invoke Article 50, and we will leave the EU.
As the regional breakdowns make clear, it will be the ranting Daily Mail readers in Middle England who take us out. London - our capital city and almost a city state in itself - will heavily vote to Remain, Scotland and Wales and presumably NI will also healthily vote Remain.
I don't expect any clear-cut victory for either side nationally anyway. There will be plenty of scope for the incoming PM after Cameron loses to say "the country is split, there is no clear groundswell to leave, the people want us to go for a better deal".
Around the major Iowa cities: Des Moines, Iowa City and Davenport, Rubio topped the polls, with 30+%, but he did much less well in rural Iowa.
Not so much fanaticism as (for once) real importance, compared to counting people standing in corners of rooms in Cedar Rapids Iowa. That was sooo last night...
From what I can glean Dave has not done a good job here and the weight challenged lady is warming her vocals on my vote....
No, if 50.1% of people vote to leave, we will leave. There will be a two year negotiation period in which our relationship with the EU will be defined (EEA/EFTA/bilateral) but there isn't any chance of staying if the people vote to leave.
Agreed. The other EU countries are quite willing to try to be reasonably accommodating, but they have basically had enough of endless haggling with the Brits. If we say no, they'll say fine, goodbye. Remember that when we've left just ONE member can veto our coming back.
It's like a difficult marriage where both sides are a bit exasperated but don't quite want to call it off. If one party walks out, then says, "Actually, let's argue about it some more, I might come back", it's human nature to say "Enough already".
I'm a Remainist but your post makes even me want to vote Leave.
It's a crude and frankly absurd threat. There will be endless haggling either way because that's what diplomacy *is*.
In the same way that no to the Constitution of the European Union, meant yes to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was essentially the same document with a new preamble.
I don't get your point.
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
They didn't make Ireland vote again either, the Irish government made Ireland vote again. If the UK votes leave, several previously unavailable rabbits will pop out of carefully concealed hats, and the usual suspects will jump on planes to Downing Street and ask Cameron if he really wants to throw all this away now he has these new improved concessions. Cameron now a revealed Europhile, who wants to use the referendum to "dock" the UK with the EU, will them find a pretext to ask the people again in light of these new offerings.. in reality it would sail through parliament because LAB/LD/SNP would support the motion if it meant that having another chance to stay in the EU.
- The 'ever closer union' bits are quite useful, with an explicit recognition that it doesn't mean political union and that competences can be returned to member states. Not sure what practical difference it makes, but it's a change of tone.
- "The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States"
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
I was hoping for a little more than “a change of tone” and something that ‘could develop into something substantive’ – I know the EU loves to write 40 words when 4 will do, but where are the promises of real change?
- The 'ever closer union' bits are quite useful, with an explicit recognition that it doesn't mean political union and that competences can be returned to member states. Not sure what practical difference it makes, but it's a change of tone.
- "The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States"
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
You can have 25/1 (with me) about any "red card" being shown this Parliament. Of course the unlikeliness of it ever being triggered doesn't preclude it being a political factor.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Yes.
Best suggestion I heard (from one of O'Malley's team, although not, I repeat not, an official campaign line) was that they should take Trump's advice and build a wall. I gently pointed out that Germans had history with walls...
Comments
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267573-poll-omalleys-iowa-backers-prefer-sanders-to-clinton
If you executed every single migrant that arrived, none would come. If you offered every African $1m if they came, then Africa would be empty. It's a curve, and everyone has their own price.
The job of the Germany government, and every other European government, is to move the curve. They can do this in three ways:
1. Make staying where they came from more attractive
2. Make the crossing more difficult
3. Make the likelihood they'll get to become EU citizens if they stay much lower.
I think a pretty good argument can be made that a caucus approach to selection of candidates is better at providing a slate of broadly acceptable choices than the current GOP large field and secret ballots.
The thing I really like about it is that citizens, rather than spin PR campaigns, debate the candidates' strengths and weaknesses and try to persuade each other. Not perfect, but it creates a more engaged electorate than simply putting a x in a box in the privacy of a booth.
I continually read on here that elections are won in the centre, I don't doubt it's true, but what that creates is twp parties full of insipid sales reps parrotting the same old cliches. Politics should be about principles and public service, not obsequiously lining up hoping for a job.
Sanders was unlucky to lose actually.
The issue he has is that Super Tuesday is as good as it gets for Cruz. After the swathe of Southern states (which are mostly proportional), he's got very little.
See: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/beware-a-gop-calendar-front-loaded-with-states-friendly-to-trump-and-cruz/
I also think they should take over the Greek operation in the Med and instead of letting them onto EU soil they should be taken back to the nearest MENA port for processing in an Asylum centre there. North African citizens can have their Asylum applications dismissed on the spot then.
Right now everyone arriving has one goal, to get to Greece and then slip through the cracks in the system. Stopping all of the arrivals in Greece would be a massive step forwards and it will take a huge force of patrol ships in the Med to stop the people trafficking, but I would guess it's a cheaper option than providing housing and other services once they arrive.
Still, this is all hypothetical, Merkel still hasn't recanted on the original policy of letting anyone who arrives in Germany stay there. All she has said is that they will have to go back once their home nations are safe. I find it very hard to believe that Germany are going to deport over a million people in 7 or 8 years without a huge uproar from the human rights mob.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/young-men-in-senegal-join-migrant-wave-despite-growing-prosperity-at-home-1434127244
But Europe - and I include Norway and Switzerland in this - needs to work on all three. If there is a single magnet country in Europe, then we are all affected.
The Democrat process in particular really looked like it was politics in the raw.
Nothing wrong at all with the system imo.
If your chance of making it to Europe is halved, that is the equivalent of doubling the cost.
The Sanders performance is more of a surprise. Hillary is in trouble on multiple fronts, although (email scandal aside) she should make up lost ground after NH.
The market reaction to these results, on the GOP side, looks bonkers to me. Rubio is a clear lay at less than evens, and Trump a clear back at 3/1. Smithson Junior's assessment of the probablilities looks reasonable to me.
That makes the cost of leaving higher; you're exchanging certain safety for cost, uncertainty and the real risk of dying in the Mediterranean.
Right; back to work...
This is why, in the GOP race with such a large field that won't finally shake out for another couple of weeks, I have been arguing that the traditional view that you have to win one of the first two to go on to the nomination simply need not hold this time. Rubio could come third again in NH and still be ahead of Cruz and only a few behind Trump in the delegate count. If he has a good day, Kasich could be in the mix too at that stage, but with far worse prospects than Rubio.
While Merkel and the rest of the German government keeps their heads in the sand and hopes that Greece will somehow stop all these people arriving or send them back nothing in Europe is going to change. The idea that Germany can close its border is laughable, they have a huge insecure land border with the Czech Republic who are actively pushing the migrants towards Germany and Austria.
@sundersays: The Donald Trump campaign was hoping that considerably more non-voters would vote.
https://twitter.com/harry_2016/status/694484006482677761
waffle
The respect for these principles is backed up by a draft Decision establishing a mechanism that while giving necessary reassurances on the concerns of non-euro area Member States, cannot constitute a veto nor delay urgent decisions. The exact conditions for triggering this mechanism remain to be further discussed.
waffle
On competitiveness, the draft Decision of the Heads, together with a more detailed European Council Declaration and a draft Commission Declaration, will set out our commitment to increase efforts to enhance competitiveness. We will regularly assess progress in simplifying legislation and reducing burden on business so that red tape is cut.
waffle
On sovereignty, the proposed Decision of the Heads recognises that in light of the United Kingdom's special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration. It also reinforces respect for subsidiarity, and I propose that the Member States discontinue the consideration of a draft legislative act where a number of national parliaments object to it on the grounds of subsidiarity, unless the concerns raised can be accommodated. The importance of respecting the opt-out regime of Protocols 21 and 22, as well as national security responsibilities is also underlined.
waffle
On social benefits and free movement, we need to fully respect the current treaties, in particular the principles of freedom of movement and non-discrimination. Therefore the proposed solution to address the UK concerns builds on the clarification of the interpretation of current rules, including a draft Commission Declaration on a number of issues relating to better fighting abuse of free movement.
waffle
Nothing here not in all the briefings is there? Where's this magic stuff Mr.Meeks has been promising us?
Trump vs Clinton - probably Clinton
Rubio vs Clinton - probably Rubio
Trump vs Sanders - probably Trump
Rubio vs Sanders - definitely Rubio.
Do you agree?
Is it worth reading any further, I’m rather busy at the mo?
It's even more embarrassingly vague and empty than I expected it to be. Yes, some useful pointers to where the EU with the UK on board goes from hereonin - but that wasn't the point. He was supposed to be renegotiating the current basis of our membership - so reining back some of what we are already subjected to.
Other than some potentially positive steps on free movement (the only bit covered in the document where ANYTHING of substance is proposed by way of legislative change), the rest of the document does nothing on that front. In fact, based on my knowledge of EU law and Treaties, it simply seems to reiterate what I thought was already the case anyway. Interspersed with platitudes and "duly noting"s
What a pathetic pile of piss.
I'm broadly pro-EU, and want to remain, but I wanted Cameron to achieve something here to address some of the things that really irritate me about the EU.
He has failed. And even more miserably than I feared.
I just don't see how the PM, or any rationally minded Tory, can sell this to voters.
What a mess.
I wanted to positively vote "Remain" having seen something of substance achieved.
I now think the best outcome may be a very balanced vote, narrowly in favour of Leave - so much so that the replacement PM (Boris? - GO is too closely associated with this mess) has to say "I don't want to leave, but given how split the nation now is with no positive groundswell to leave, I will now get us a better deal over the next 6 months and we'll have another vote to see whether you like that or not".
I think that is what Boris has hinted at being the outcome of "Leave" winning anyway....
I'm long Rubio POTUS right now, and think it hedges my GOP book but not sure.
Cameron was always going to be out on his ear this summer if he lost the referendum. I wonder now whether he'll see out March....
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/new-settlement/
- Explicit tradeoff of the deal: they can deepen integration of the Eurozone and we won't obstruct them, we are protected against being discrimination. That is exactly what we want.
- Para 1 is encouraging: "Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States. These acts shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of Member States whose currency is not the euro."
- Formal acknowledgement of no budgetary responsibility for non-Euro states in bailouts (para 3)
A firm that made £680m in profit is given £800K for some lightbulbs.
If even 55% vote leave and the new PM says he's going to negotiate a last-ditch deal to stay in and put that to a vote, then nobody can stop him (if he has the support of a majority in the House).
A sham.
And I think people peddling Leave means Maybe, are either deluded or lying.
Worse, I think people from both sides are guilty of pushing this for different reasons. Some Remain-ers are trying to lay the groundwork for claiming there is a mandate for another vote in the event of a close Out. Some Leave-ers are hoping to get a few undecideds to vote Out in the chance of more concessions.
Remember boys and girls. Leave means Leave.
Though if it does end up Hillary v Rubio I expect the market will start off with Hillary fav.
- The 'ever closer union' bits are quite useful, with an explicit recognition that it doesn't mean political union and that competences can be returned to member states. Not sure what practical difference it makes, but it's a change of tone.
- "The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States"
- The 'red card' system is quite interesting. It could develop into a substantive political factor in EU politics.
It's like a difficult marriage where both sides are a bit exasperated but don't quite want to call it off. If one party walks out, then says, "Actually, let's argue about it some more, I might come back", it's human nature to say "Enough already".
Let's say the 'deal' goes down as badly as predicted on here. We are six weeks before a referendum and its 55/35 for leave, the rest don't knows.
Do you really think there won;t be a last ditch initiative to sweeten the offer?
There's very interesting county-by-county results in Iowa here: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/iowa-caucus-results/?mod=e2fb
Around the major Iowa cities: Des Moines, Iowa City and Davenport, Rubio topped the polls, with 30+%, but he did much less well in rural Iowa.
As for everything else, we have some platitudes and possibly helpful changes to give us a bit more leverage to not be completely screwed over going forward - but most of those platitudes are, i'm afraid to say, already there in many of the EU texts, treaties, communiques etc. And in most cases, the EU institutions just ride roughshod over them and say they have complied.
So why will things be any different going forward?
The vote, should it actually happen, boils down to "you will have the EU set up you currently have, but with a bit more scope for limiting inward migration - take it or leave it".
My fear is that by voting "Remain" I am now implicitly endorsing all that the EU currently does and endorsing the "new deal". I don't want to do that.
Help.... ?
If the referendum is Leave, then the UK will - within a matter of days - invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU has no power to make us to vote again. No matter what the ECJ or the Council of Ministers or the Donald Tusk or Jean-Claude Juncker says the UK cannot be made to vote again.
considering.
But that's different from a UK government being made to rerun the referendum by the EU. Or, for that matter, the UK government choosing to ignore the results of the referendum.
If we vote to Leave, we will invoke Article 50, and we will leave the EU.
I don't expect any clear-cut victory for either side nationally anyway. There will be plenty of scope for the incoming PM after Cameron loses to say "the country is split, there is no clear groundswell to leave, the people want us to go for a better deal".
From what I can glean Dave has not done a good job here and the weight challenged lady is warming her vocals on my vote....
It's a crude and frankly absurd threat. There will be endless haggling either way because that's what diplomacy *is*.